Let me count the ways
by Chris on Aug.07, 2004, under General Thoughts, Internet, Media and Rants
I can’t even start to enumerate the ways that this program to teach schoolchildren copyright offends my sensibilities.
Along with the american MPAA, who is also doing something like it, this program is part of a concerted effort by holders of modern, excessively-long copyrights to indoctrinate young children into toeing the party line.
Unlike some groups I don’t advocate the idea that ‘Information wants to be free’, nor do I believe that any entity, be they an artist or a massive conglomerate like the (MP|RI)AA, is obligated to give away their intellectual property just because the marginal cost of duplication is so small. However, I object to the entry of private industry lobby groups into an education system that is already starting to show signs of commercial decay.
The Register in the UK has a writeup on this, and there is an open letter from a British citizen on kuro5hin that indicates a nice, clear set of objections to the policy.
Sometimes I think that, while we’re all looking the other way, our rights as human beings — not as abstract consumers of goods — are simply going to be cancelled along with the latest crop of post-Seinfeld flops.
This shit worries me. What in the hell are we doing, letting this happen?
August 7th, 2004 on 7:12 pm
I disagree with long term copy writing. Granted, a company like Disney wants to keep Mickey Mouse as its own. Fair enough. So there should be a set time until the copy right expires and then it must be reapplied for. And if they have their shit together, they apply early. And maybe there can be some sort of “holding” law whereby the original copywritee gets top priority in renewing. I haven’t read the links yet though. I just wanted to say this, because it seems like a fairly logical way to work things out, but, as I am constantly realizing, logic does not play much of a roll in the way other people think and act.
August 8th, 2004 on 11:40 am
why does there have to be a time limit on your intellectual property? Perhaps it should be your own while you live, and willed publicly or to your benefactor when you die.
August 8th, 2004 on 11:49 am
The idea that there is a time limit stems from the dual goal of copyright law—on the one hand, it exists to protect the rights of the content creator to profit from his/her creation, by limiting the legal right to duplicate their work for the duration of the copyright. However, there is a tradeoff: In order to secure society’s aid in protecting their work, the creator implicitly agrees to give up control over their work after a reasonable time has passed, so that the art will pass into the public domain and thus improve the culture around it.
However, under current law, copyright lasts the lifetime of the creator plus 99 years, with options for renewal beyond even that. Which is, essentially, stripping the public domain of all of its wealth.
August 10th, 2004 on 12:31 pm
Where did you get this number from? The ‘lifetime plus 99years’ one. As far as I know the
international law is that copyright expires 50 years after the death of the holder. So, for
example, anything written by Hank Williams will be in the public domain because
he died in 1953.
Aside from that though… the wealth of the public domain is extravagant. The only things that
aren’t there now are the recent things we are most familiar with. But the finest works of
the best composers ever to grace the earth are all in the public domain. Beethoven, Chopin,
Schumann, JS Bach, JC Bach, CPE Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Josquin, etc…
The holders of the rights to
these composer’s music still make money but as far as I understand it’s through the purchasing
of the literature rather than the ‘performing costs’. This basically means that I can go buy
a piece of music, {the publisher, family, etc. makes money}, and then if I want to record
that music and make money off of the sales they are legally mine, {of course I would make no
composer royalties but hey…}
August 10th, 2004 on 6:00 pm
The Sonny Bono copyright act, if i recall correctly, is the act in question. Bear in mind that it’s purely in the US, but since the US is the largest market, its laws have the most far-reaching financial effect.
August 10th, 2004 on 6:02 pm
What’s more, I’m not so much concerned about the existing wealth in the public domain, I’m concerned about the lack that will occur in the near future, when the current copyright holders maintain control as opposed to passing things off to the public.
There’s a big back catalogue, to be sure, but there’s a lot of new material that isn’t going to see public use for the better part of a century, even now. Forget the newer stuff whose creators are still alive…
August 12th, 2004 on 1:31 pm
May I add a cynical comment? Okay… {this is honestly directed at nobody inparticular} in
this day and age why would such a dispute arise on the internet where the biggest offenses
to copyright are made? I mean to say that if somebody cares a whole lot about copyright then
they wouldn’t be caught dead burning cd’s/dvd’s/games/etc right?
August 15th, 2004 on 1:05 am
I kind of agree with the current copyright laws, I mean, as the creator of something, you wouldn’t want other people making money off of your ideas. even though the current incarnation of the Disney company is a soulless mechanical outfit that will one day buy a South American country and markey Mickey’s Cocaine Candy, Walt Disney himself spent endless hours not just creating, but giving birth to the company. Someone dedicated enough to his dream to have himself frozen in the hopes of seeing how it will turn out deserves to maintain sole rights over his mental property. To me, it’d be like working all your life, paying into a pension plan, and when you retire, instead of recieving payment, someone else comes along asnd says, “You know… I think I’d like that.. yoink!” (Not that the government would ever screw anyone out of pension, mind you.)